Posted tagged ‘religion’

Christian Worldview Thought of the Day: Wednesday

July 15, 2009

A friend of mine posted a thoughtful question about abortion on his facebook status earlier today.  But that wasn’t what caught my interesting in particular, it was someone who commented on his status that had me thinking about the abortion issue in a different way.

Of course, the question of whether or not the fetus is a human life is the most important one in the debate.  However, what about the rights of the father?  All we hear is “It’s the woman’s body so she gets to choose.”  Really?  That’s not even biological correct.  The baby (or fetus, however you prefer to think about it, because that’s all it is, a preference) has half the fathers DNA and literally part of the father’s body entered the mother’s and became a part of the baby (and I’m not talking about the penis you sickos).

So it is also the father’s body that is a part of the growing baby.  I’ll ask again.  What about the rights of the father?  Doesn’t he have a say in what happens to his half of the DNA?  Isn’t this country all about equal rights for everyone?  So what about the rights of the father?

Christian Worldview Thought of the Day: Thursday

July 9, 2009

I am truly more saddened by the death of Steve McNair than Michael Jackson.  “Air McNair” was killed last weekend, in his sleep, by his girlfriend.  Steve was married.  His girlfriend, Sahel Kazemi, then turned the gun on herself.

Steve McNair was a great football player.  I truly enjoyed watching him play for years.  He embodied toughness and professionalism, and from all accounts of those around him, he was a good man who loved his family and gave back to his community. 

I’m not going to jump onto the “Steve McNair deserved to die because he was cheating on his wife” bandwagon.  However, this brings a sober reminder to any of us who are paying attention that being a “good man” is not enough.  Temptation comes to all of us, and we must be diligent in the Word and in our relationship with Christ or His protection over us may be lifted.

I don’t know if Steve McNair was a Christian, even though he did go to church in Nashville, and I don’t know if he deserved to die the way he did.  But I do know that if Steve wasn’t violating the sanctity of his marriage, I’d have a different “thought of the day”.

Critical Thinking

May 18, 2009

I’ve been out of the battle of worldviews for awhile, but I just couldn’t resist after reading this gem. 

In fact, I have no idea why I was reading “Proud Atheists” again.  Truth be told I don’t find Mark to be intelligent and unique.  He’s just very good at condescending sarcasm and ignorant sensationalism which fills his blog stats.  Indeed, I wouldn’t even be writing this here if I was able to comment on his site (that’s right, I asked him a few tough questions and he banned me back in January). 

OK on to the point.  Mark wrote a post called Let’s Set the Record Straight, and I couldn’t help but smile triumphantly.  The purpose of the post was to . . . set the record straight . . . about how he feels about his atheism.  Some of the points aren’t worth discussing, but others are very telling. 

Part of this first point reads:

 I do not believe in gods, devils, demons, spirits, ghosts, souls, angels or any other being that controls humans.

This begs the question of free will.  Since God doesn’t exist then man is nothing but biochemistry (to say otherwise is just plain ignorance of biochemistry).  So instead of God “controlling us”, as Mark puts it, it is DNA and the chemical interactions controlled by that DNA that controls us.  Mark would call it “What I decided to do at the time” or “I do what I think is right”, but it’s all the same, brain activity controlled by biochemical interactions. 

So, Mark is right, he doesn’t believe in a being that controls humans, and neither do I (for if God really controlled us than atheism wouldn’t exist), but he believes in a worldview that makes the idea of “free will” nothing more than a created self-delusion.  Just as Mark sees those who believe in a deity as delusional, Mark has deluded himself that he has “free will” absent of God.   

Mark’s second point is:

As an atheist, I do not accept prayers, spells, curses, invitations to your theistic site for debate, scriptures, books, videos and other “God” media as proof of “existence of God”. Although you may find them inspirational, they are man made and only support a belief, not proof.

OK, so Mark has proof, while Christians only believe.  Got it.  Also, Mark will not engage in any debate and will not read any evidence for Christianity or against atheism.  Got it.  Take note of these two, they’ll become important in about two seconds.

He continues on with:

It is not my responsibility as an atheist to provide proof for my non-belief in your God or gods. However, if you claim to believe that elves and other supernatural phenomena exist, the burden of proof is on you. Without proof, you will be deemed as deluded in my view.

Wait. wait…wait.  I thought Mark had all the proof and us Christians didn’t?  I find it pretty selfish of Mark to keep all this “proof” to himself.  So, Mark won’t discuss any evidence for any opposite position and he won’t provide any evidence for his position.  Now that’s what I call a rational worldview!

I am not obligated to respect your religion, as most religions do not respect atheism or critical thought for that matter.

If “critical thought” is refusing to discuss an issue and provide evidence for your own opinion then I’ve been doing it all wrong!

Now you see why reading this had me all smiles.  No matter how loud or often Mark calls Christians irrational, his own words betray that he is just as dogmatic as any true believer that I know.

Why I’m Mostly a Cessationist

May 16, 2009

The recent debate with Coramdeo gave me an opportunity to reflect, study, and reason through the issue of Spiritual gifts.  Most importantly, I was able to see the arguments and Scripture used to support cessationism.

The title of this post may seem in contradiction to my previous one.  However, as I will show, I still have the same problems with cessationism yet consider myself to be one.

Definitions

Most of the difficulty in studying and discussing the issue of spiritual gifts lies in what the heck we mean when we say things.  To some, cessationism means a belief that God never does any miracles, nor imparts His power onto His people in the form of “gifts”, anymore. 

To some, continuationism means those who believe that the gifts have continued in the exact same way they occured in the New Testament.

In fact, even the term “gifts” is hard to nail down.  If God has given me the gift of prophecy, does that mean I hold the office of prophet?  Or merely that God has gifted me with the ability to teach His Word?  Is not speaking God’s Word directly in the lives, hearts and minds of fellow Christians a gift?  If I participated in a healing through prayer, does that mean I have the gift of healing?  Or is it that God just did a singular work of healing?  Is not a singular healing still a gift?  How many healings do I have to be involved in before I “have the gift”?

Do you see how hard to define these words become?  Alot of explanation is needed before we are on the same page when I say the word “gifts”.  In order to clarify, I will attempt to parse out a difference here:  I consider that a “gift of the Spirit” has been bestowed upon someone even if they only do it once.  Does that person “have the gift of healing”?  I don’t know, but at that moment they did.  You can think of this as a single incidence of God working through a believer, it’s the same thing, I’m just using the word “gift” to describe it. 

On the other hand, the office of healer or prophet is someone that can do it all the time.  Just as the man who holds the office of president is president all the time, if you went to someone who held the office of healer, you would be healed.  Some may think of this as someone “having the gift of healing” but I’m using the phrase office of ____ to describe it because it provides the separation we need when discussing this issue.

I’m interested in discussing these definitions and seeing if there is a better fit out there that allows us a better way to think about this issue.

It doesn’t matter what definition to the these words you subscribe to, it matters how people use them.  The cessationism I have a problem with is the one that says “God just doesn’t do these things anymore”.  The cessationism I have become to subscribe to is the kind that says the gifts are wholly different than they were in the 1st century, and the offices have ceased.  I will explain what I mean.

 Historical Cessationism

Ok, the above term is nothing I’ve heard of before.  Perhaps there is a term out there that already represents what I’m about to describe, but I just thought of this one. 

My cessationism comes from the annals of history.  If you read the history of the church and especially the writings of the early church fathers, not only do you not hear of any prophets but you see them lamenting the fact that there aren’t any!  Think about it from their point of view:  There has been a long standing tradition of prophets existing in the world as recorded in the Old Testament, which continued with a flurry as recorded by the Book of Acts.  In fact, you could consider every writer of the New Testament as prophets as they were inspired to write the Word of God.

The early church fathers would naturally assume that this tradition would continue.  However, it did not.  They all looked around them and all they could see was false prophets who went against the Word of God  (There is a good reference here for that).  The office of prophet seemed to be…gone.

Another exercise could be to look around today.  Are there any prophets?  Maybe, but I haven’t seen any.  He’d have to prove himself and, sorry, Benny Hin is not it.  Same with the office of healer.  Sure, God has and does perform miraculous healing using prayer and the actions of His Church.  However, the office of healer is someone that heals all the time.   Think about a guy like Peter.  If you went to him, you were healed.  In studying early church history, and looking at the world around us, there doesn’t seem to be someone like that.

So, history seems to attest to the cessation of the offices of prophet and healer.  My cessationism is historically informed. 

Why the “Mostly”

I can call myself a historical cessationist but not a Biblical cessationist because Biblical cessationism doesn’t presently exist.  That is, the Bible says the gifts will cease but in describing whenthe gifts will cease, it is clear that it is not now.  Let’s look at the verses used to support cessationism and why I can say that Biblical cessationism doesn’t exist.

1 Cor 13 is one of the more popular ones used: 

…but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part;  10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

There are many problems with translating “the perfect” as the “the canon” and that is explained in one of my previous posts.  The bottom line is that at the very least, it is just as likely that Paul is referring to “the perfect” to be the coming of our glorified bodies in heaven as it is the canon.  In fact, the NIV translates “the perfect” as “perfection”.  The only way that this passage is solid evidence that the gifts ceased with the canon is if you want it to be.

Eph 4:11-13 is also used quite frequently.  The argument made here is that the offices of prophets and apostles have ceased because the church has been established:

11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

This point is more well explained in my previous post, so I’ll be brief here.  Basically, it is bad Biblical hermeneutics to pick two offices out of the five Paul mentions in the same breath and say, “those have ceased!”.  If those two have ceased because of the establishment of the church, then all five have ceased because Paul lists all five together.  The only reason a cessationist will say that the offices of pastor, teacher and evangelist hasn’t ceased is because it’s obvious they haven’t!  They use the passage when it supports their position (apostle and prophet) but ignore it when it doesn’t (pastor, teacher and evangelist). 

Also, Paul tells us when these office will ceased and, I’m sorry, but looking around at the church today we have not attained the unity of the faith and are not mature men “to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ”.  That is not the Church today.  So just by a plain reading of the text, it’s clear that Paul is not talking about the current church as to when the gifts will cease. 

Remember, I agree that the office of prophet and apostle have ceased, but that’s just not what this passage says.

Another argument used to support cessationism is that if you read the New Testament, the only people who perform the gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing are either Jesus, the Apostles, or those the Apostles laid hands upon to give the gifts. 

The ironic part is that if really doread the New Testament, Scripture doesn’t support this position.  There are a few instances (Acts 8, Acts 19…to name the ones I remember off the top) where those who receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands immediately begin speaking in tongues and prophesying.  However, Scripture never says that the laying on of hands imparted Spiritual gifts.  This is an non-Biblical idea.  In fact, there are two cases in the Book of Acts that render this position irrational. 

Stephen and Philip weren’t apostles, they were deacons, and didn’t receive the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands (as far as we can tell) and yet could perform “signs and wonders” (Acts 6 for Stephen and Acts 8 for Philip).  In Acts 10, Cornelius becomes the first purely Gentile convert to Christianity.  Peter isn’t even done speaking, doesn’t lay hands on them or baptize them and Cornelius and his family and friends receive the Holy Spirit and begin speaking in tongues and prophesying. 

Conclusion

I look in the history of the church, and the current state of the church, and I see that the office of prophet and healer has ceased to exist.  I look in the Scriptures and I find that I can’t say the gifts have ceased.  I see clear guidelines in how to use them and discern what is actually from the Spirit and what isn’t. 

I also see that Paul emphasizes one gift over all others:  Love.  We should not focus on, pray for or consider important any other gift besides love.

Why I Have a Problem with Cessationism

April 28, 2009

This is my third post in the debate on the cessation of spiritual gifts.

So far, I have merely responded to posts made by Coramdeo.  But now I want to explain my true position on cessationism, why I have a problem with it, and why I think the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing may still happen today.

Here is my Main Problem with Cessationism

It’s an absolute negative statement.  What I mean is this:  even if cessationists are claiming that only certain gifts don’t happen anymore, and the others do, they are saying that the gifts that have ceased never happen under any circumstances

I got in a discussion with my father over this issue and he asked me a very telling question.  He asked me, “What purpose does tongues have today?”  This was meant has a rhetorical question, of course.  In fact, it is not the question that matters at all, it is the assumption behind the question, the reason the question was rhetorical, that means something.  My father, in his Christian life and theological education, which has been long and extensive, has decided that there is no purpose for the gift of tongues.  Unfortunately, “decided” is not the most accurate word.  “Assumed” is the most accurate because no one can know an absolute negative.  No one can know that there is no use for tongues ever under any circumstances.

And yet, that it what cessasionism claims.

Are we really ready to believe that the Holy Spirit would never, ever use tongues, healing or prophecy under any circumstances?  Even if I travel to a 3rd world country where I don’t know the language, the Spirit couldn’t use tongues to speak a language I don’t know to bring people to a knowledge of Christ?  How more useful can you get?

In order for me to subscribe to cessationism I would have to know for sure that the Spirit would never use tongues, healing or prophecy (that doesn’t attempt to add to Scripture) under any circumstances or any time, ever.  I’m just not ready to do that.

A Caveat

The reason I’m not ready to that is because there is no clear cut Scriptural reason for cessationism.  I have no problem with absolute negatives in themselves, but only with clear Scriptural backing.  For instance, Scripture is clear that there is no other way to God besides Jesus Christ.  It’s an absolute negative, and I can know it because God tells me so.  I would have to be equally Scripturally convinced of cessationism.

Caveat #2

If the term “cessationism” is being used to describe a position where the gifts are different or used much more sparingly in modern times, then I don’t have a problem with that stance.  I completely agree that the historical context matters and being two thousand years post-Cornelius Gentiles is not the same as being a Jew two years removed from Pentecost.

It makes sense that the Holy Spirit would bestow the gifts upon those building the church differently than those who are born two thousand years after the church has been built.  However, I draw the line on making absolute statements about what the Holy Spirit will and won’t do unless Scripture is clear on that absolute statement. 

Three Elephants

The reason I’m not Scripturally convinced of the absolute negative, is that there are a few problems with cessionism, or “elephants in the room” if you will.

One of these elephants is 1 Cor 13 as explained in my previous post.  This passage is often used in support of cessationism however their are many problems in interpreting “the perfect” to mean the canon of Scripture.  Again, this was explained previously.

Eph 4:11-13 is also used as a proof text for cessationism.  This passage says that certain offices have been appointed by God, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.”  So Paul mentions them all in the same breath.  Then he tells us what purpose those offices were appointed for, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ“.  Then he gives us under what circumstances those offices will cease, “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”

What the cessationists do is say that this means the offices of apostles and prophets have ceased.  I have no problem with believing this is true.  However, the office of apostle hasn’t ceased because the Church is established, it has ceased because the definition of Apostle is someone who has seen the Risen Jesus face to face.  And since He’s ascended . . .

It’s also bad hermenuetics to pick out two of the offices mentioned all in the same breath and say “only these two have ceased because the church and canon are established” when Paul makes no distinction between the offices and when they will cease.  Paul is exactly saying that all these offices will cease at a certain time and he doesn’t say that some will cease first and others second, or third etc.  To insert an order here is just bad Biblical interpretation. 

Also, Paul never says that these gifts will cease when the Church is established.  The cessationist crowd must interpret “until we all attain the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” to mean the church.  The parsing out of what exactly this is referring to would take a long time.  It will suffice to say here that, looking at myself and the rest of the church, I’m not comfortable saying that since we have the canon we are “mature” to the degree “of the fullness of Christ“.  If Paul is describing the church here, his description doesn’t accurately reflect any church I’ve ever heard of, in modern times or in the early church.

The third elephant in the room of cessationism ties in closely with this passage in Ephesians.  In Coramdeo’s original post on this subject he says:

I think the N.T is quite evident that Pastors and Teacher are to continue on, but we do not have much evidence that Apostles or Prophets should continue on, and in light of other passages I think it is best to conclude that Apostles and Prophet offices have ceased.

I completely agree with Coramdeo here.  There is no need to add to Scripture and so the office of Prophet (in the Old Testament sense) has ceased and Christ ascended two thousand years ago so the office of apostle died with the twelve.  However, what Coramdeo is concluding here is that since those offices have ceased, so too have certain gifts.

The elephant in the room is two men by the name of Stephen and Philip.  Both of these men were not Apostles, they were deacons.  And yet, Luke tells us that Stephen performed “great signs and wonders” (Acts 6) while the people of Samaria “heard and saw that signs which he [Philip] was performing” (Acts 8).  So deacons, and not just Apostles, were capable of performing “great signs and wonders” of the Holy Spirit.  Even since the office of Apostle has ceased, apparently that doesn’t mean that gifts must cease. 

Jesus Himself seems to support this definition of those who can perform works of the Spirit. 

Mark 16:17-18, “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So the qualification of those who can do such things are “those who have believed”.  That’s it. 

Let Us Pursue Love

Let us also be skeptical.  Just because believers can do such things, it doesn’t mean that this does, or should, go on all around us.  It also doesn’t mean that the gifts of prophecy, tongues or healing should be a primary pursuit of ours.  1 Cor 13:

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

In fact, in 1 Cor 14 Paul explains in strict detail how gifts should be handled and that the goal should be for the edification of the church.  These guidelines should absolutely be followed or the gifts are not being used correctly.  And if they’re not being used correctly, then it’s not of the Spirit.  Paul concludes the chapter with, “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.  But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”

Since we do not have solid Scriptural backing for doing so, let us not subscribe to an absolute negative regarding certain gifts.  But let us pursue the greatest gift of the Spirit, love, and let us do everything for the edification of the Church and be bold enough to follow the guidelines laid down by Paul, squashing any “manifestation of the Spirit” that does not follow them.

Shame on You, Perez Hilton

April 21, 2009

It brings a wry smile to my face with the tolerance crowd shows their true colors.  No matter how much they try to promote “tolerance” as the ultimate good, they show over and over again that they actually don’t believe that.

The most recent example is the controversy surrounding the runner up to Miss America, Carrie Prejean.  During her interview process, she was asked, by Perez Hilton, a question about her views on same-sex marriage.  She explained that, “in my country, and in my family, marriage is between a man and a woman – no offense to anone out there”.  Needless to say, she did not win the Miss America crown.

Hilton took the opportunity to do get as much exposure as possible, Larry King, MSNBC arguing against Prejeans statements.  On his Twitter page, Hilton called Prejean a “dumb b****”, apologized for the comment, and then took back the apology.

To Perez Hilton:

So basically, tolerance only applies to those that agree with you, right?  You expect everyone to be tolerant of your redefinition of marriage, but the minute someone disagrees with you, the tolerance rule no longer applies, right?  You can go around calling women b****es but if someone is derogatory towards homosexuals, boy do they deserve to pay.

Can you not respect that Prejean didn’t bow to popular opinion and expressed her beliefs?  She basically gave up her dream of being Miss America to be true to what she believes, wouldn’t you do the same for your beliefs Perez?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, Perez.  I thank you for showing the world who you truly are so that we will no longer be fooled by your mask of “tolerance”.  Your vile comments prove that you are just as dogmatic a believer as the religious whom you berate.

The Ceasing of Spiritual Gifts: A Debate (Response #2)

April 20, 2009

Coramdeo responded to my first entry on the topic over on his blog. 

Semantics, Both Irrelevant and Important

In reading Coramdeo’s response, it has become quite clear that him and I are mincing words to some degree.  In some places these semantics are irrelevant but in other places they are very important.  Coramdeo previously claimed:

God still works supernaturally,[but] we rely upon Scripture alone to hear from God, to prove His gospel, and be the catalyst that saves His people

I still see a contradiction here becuase of the word alone, but I understand what Coramdeo is saying.    He explains himself well later on:

Does the Holy Spirit still work today? Yes. Does He still perform miracles? Yes. Does He speak to people or use power to verify people’s messages, spoken outside the scope of Scripture? No.

See, this I can get behind.  The key phrase here is “outside the scope of Scripture”.  Of course the Holy Spirit has self-limited to the guidelines set down by Scripture.

Personal Experience

For the record, I am not with A.H. Ackley when he says, “You ask me how I know he lives?  He lives within my heart.”  That’s not a very good apologetic.  What I mean is this:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:13-14).

Is not recieving the Holy Spirit as a “seal” and “pledge” personally experienced?  What validates this personal experience is the Word of God, and without this Scriptural backing any personal experience is, at best, meaningless if not heretical.  However, this is a personal experience nonetheless. 

 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16).

Here Paul is specifically telling us that a subjective, personal experience verifies to us that we are children of God.  What could be more subjective and personal than the Spirit of God testifying to our spirit?

In fact, the context of Romans 8: 4-16 is that Paul is describing how the Spirit will guide us because “all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.”  The Spirits’ leading in our minds and lives is subjective, real, and valid. 

Gal 5:16-25  is another time Paul is elaborating on subjective traits that will change with the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the book of Acts, there are numerous references to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 16:6-7, Luke tells us that Paul on his second missionary journey was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” and then that “they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them“.  Of course, no written law from the Old Testament (the Scripture of the day) told them that they couldn’t preach in Asia or Bithynia.  It seems that the Holy Spirit must have directed them in a specific way, whether through audible words, or an unmistakeable sense in the mind, or some other subjective impression of a lack of the Spirit’s blessing on the attempted endeavor (Grudem’s Systematic Theology, pg. 643). 

In another instance, Paul says, “I am going to Jerusalem bound by the Spirit, not knowing what shall befall me there; except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me” (Acts 20:22-23).  Paul’s personal impression of what the Holy Spirit wants for him, and has in store for him, is so powerful and specific that he is “bound” by what he must do and knows what will happen to him when he does it. 

These verses are in direct contradiction to something Coramdeo said:

You see the point is the subjective really doesn’t matter, what matters is objective truth.

Scripture is saying that the subjective does matter.  In fact, the personal and subjective leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit is a standard theological doctrine and characteristic of the acts of the Holy Spirit. 

Look, I understand where this sentiment comes from.  We are living in a time when the scientific community has told us that only “objective, provable” truth matters.  Our western thinking is that if it can’t be proved with evidence, then it isn’t valid.  And then, many cults and religious crazies came around and showed the world how dangerous and silly “because I feel it” can be, which only furthered the paradigm.  Unfortunately, this is just not what Scripture teaches. 

What I’m saying is that there is a ditch on both sides of the road.  On one side is “because I feel it” and on the other side is “the subjective doesn’t matter.”  Let’s follow Scripture and not swerve so far away from one side that we fall into the ditch on other.

“The Perfect”

It seems we’re still at an impasse here.  I still feel that the problems with interpreting “the perfect” to be the Canon have not been answered.  First, I’ll respond to the argument Coramdeo posted by Dave Stevens.

Paul compares what will happen when “the perfect” comes with two metaphors.  1.  Knowledge of a child vs. knowledge of a man and 2.  seeing through a dim mirror vs. seeing face to face.  Mr. Stevens’ main point is that if we take “the perfect” to mean the Second Coming of Christ, then we will be “mixing metaphors”.  Interpreting the first three as metaphors and the last one (face to face) as being literally face to face with Christ is inconsistent.

The problem with this argument is two fold.  Firstly, “face to face” is not exactly lacking any metaphorical language.  When I meet someone face to face, as we say, I’m not actually putting my face to his face am I?  So face to face is a metaphor for meeting someone and seeing their face. 

Secondly, so we’re mixing metaphors…and?  Paul uses a metaphor three times and then a less metaphorical example the fourth.  What’s the problem with this?  Mr. Stevens claims this is a problem in interpreting “the perfect” as the Second Coming, but doesn’t explain why this is a problem.  In fact, all he does is claim that mixing metaphors is a problem because, “Paul would never mix a metaphor with reality”. 

So now he’s using a non-Biblical definition of what Paul would and wouldn’t do to interpret Scripture.  That is not solid hermeneutics.  It ignores that “face to face” is a metaphor and ignores his own limitations it knowing, with any accuracy, what literary devices Paul would and wouldn’t use and where.  That Paul wouldn’t mix metaphors here is pure assumption.

Stevens also says that if “the perfect” is interpreted as The Second Coming of Christ it would the only time Jesus was described in the neuter.  Good point, and that’s why this passage has garnered wide debate.  However, Stevens ignores two counter-points.  1.  If “the perfect” is referring to the Canon then it would be the only prophecy of it’s kind in all of Scripture (equally problematic to the sole instance of a neuter tense to describe Christ) and 2. the option of interpreting “the perfect” to mean our glorified state in heaven solves both the problem of the neuter tense and the unique prophecy problem.

Two Unanswered Questions

What both Stevens and Coramdeo did not address is that, in their position on “the perfect”, Paul is including himself the lack of knowledge the Corinthians have (dim mirror, understanding like a child) and that the canon will give them full knowledge.  I objected, stating that I don’t think we should be ready to claim that the author of two-thirds of that same canon, an author that was taught by Jesus Himself for three years, an author that fellowshipped with probably every author of the remaining one third of the canon, is lacking knowledge that the canon would provide him with. 

In an attempt to answer this objection, Coramdeo stated:

Of course Paul is including himself in this because the church has not been built yet, nor has the canon, since others like John were writing it.

This does not answer the objection because it is begging the question.  The question isn’t about whether or not the canon is complete or the church is built.  The question is whether or not Paul is lacking in knowledge that the canon would give him.

So, I will ask again.  Coramdeo, are you claiming that the Apostle Paul, with all the characteristics described above, is lacking in knowledge, just like the Corinthians are, that the canon will give him when it comes?

My other objection was centered around another part of the passage that has gone unmentioned.  When describing the knowing what will occur when “the perfect” has come, Paul says that we will “know in full, just as we are fully known”.  Taking Coramdeo’s position, this would mean that since the canon has come, we know God’s truth as equally and fully as God knows us.  Are we really ready to say this?

The Point Is This

I have no problem with Coramdeo not being able answer these objections right away (although I, of course, welcome any response on the topic).  Nor am I saying that since these objections exist, therefore 1 Cor 13:8-13 cannot be referring to the canon.  My point is that since this is, at the very least, a vague and hotly debated passage, it is irrational to base the doctrine of cessationism, even in part, upon it.  If Coramdeo agrees, then we put this aside as “inconclusive” and move onto the other questions Coramdeo has asked of continuationism and the other evidences for cessationism.